Date : 01 Jan 2018

Peter Placzek
Design Director at Meinhardt (VIC)

TORSION IS BAD!
Below is a display of two simple concrete beam floor systems, identical except for the torsion stiffness modification
factor. The beams in the first system have full torsional stiffness while in the second system have torsional stiffness
reduced to 1...Show more

 LikeComment
 12333
4w
View previous comments


Eric Fernando Espinosa Cazarín Sound very interesting, do you have some papers where we can find more information
about it? Thank you
o Like
 3w


Chee Siang Ho However, the secondary beam moment increased by 20%. As long as you design according to what you
analyze. It should be fine. Practically, I hate the torsional link.
o Like
3w


Liam Tagell Daniel Hinds
o Like
3w


Peter Placzek Chee: Secondary beams would also be under-designed with T=1.
Torsion is more difficult to deal with and not as ductile as the flexure - it would be BAD DESIGN

Eric: This is the "paper". Or see what CSI have to say about it - according to Himashu.

Himanshu:
It is not a problem requiring solution! If you were not new to this group you would know that this question keeps coming back
repeatedly. Next time I will be able to refer them to this post.
Show less
o Like
3w


sanjay joshi Nishant Rathi pls decode this for me
o Like
3w


Albert Foo Hi Peter Placzek, I just wanted to check my understanding of the above behaviour correctly: The far long edge
beam (full torsional resistance) with intermediate support is torsionally preventing the secondary beams to "sit" fully on the near
long edge main beam. Is this right?
o Like
3w


Peter Placzek Albert Foo, NO, The main reason is the torsion in the secondary beams The red circled steps in the bending
moment are direct moment reductions equal to torsion in the secondary beam.
The effect you describe would only change the slope of the moment diagram, it would not produce the reduction steps.
o Like
3w


Albert Foo Ah Right, understand now thank you
o Like
3w


Clive Allen Good example. Thanks for postings
o Like
3w


César Caneo Do you release the Torsion on the secundary beams????
o Like
3w


Peter Placzek YEAH! T stiffness factor =0.1. That is the whole point of the post.
o Like
3w

Carlos Leal Good Peter. The question is about what kind of torsion are you dealing with. The seconday beams are in a
compatible mode of torsion. We know that the micro cracking of the beams due to torsion reduces considerably its torsion
rigidity. In the limit we can abandone it. But if we talk about equilibrium torsion, the problem is completely diferent. I like your
coments.Show less
o Like
3w


Peter Placzek Carlos - the tail shaft in the rear drive car is a torsion element, but you would not make it from concrete. Sorry
just being flippant. Cases, when concrete must work in torsion, are rare. As the structural engineer, you should be able to identify
them and deal with them as appropriate.
However, I am not aware of any software that will predict the long-term torsional deflection of a reinforced concrete beam. Show
less
o Like
3w


Royce Agabas that is not a torsion, it is a bending moment.
o Like
3w


Dr. Ahmed Kamal Kindly add the torsion values figures for both cases. I think it will be helpful.
o Like
3w


Dr. Ahmed Kamal The point is not the torsion is more difficult to deal with or not. If the case we deal with is equilibrium
torsion, statically determinate case, reduction in torsion stiffness is not allowed as there is no way for redistribution of internal
forces. In case of compatibility torsion, the torsional moment is a particular part of statically indeterminate structure. So in that
case, you may allow to the beam to twist with small neglected cracks and torsion will be redistributed as bending moment in
 connected elements.
Show less
o Like
3w


Peter Placzek The issue is very simple one. Do not try to complicate it! If you are interested in the torsion you have missed my
point completely. See also my response to Carlos.
o Like
o 1
3w


Iyad Hassan Al-Jamal Thanks Peter excellent example. My comment is that Deflection Compatibility in Elastic FE models
arising from Torsion or other causes can result in a load path that can't be achieved in reality. The proper use of stiffness
modifiers can fix the problem but needs to be assessed on a case by case basis rather than setting a fixed set of stiffness to be used
at all times.Show less
o Like
2w


Vaisakh Vasudevan In the first example in addition to flexural bending moment a torsional moment will also develop in the
primary beam. Indian code recommends us to design the member for an additional moment to account for torsion. So the design
of primary beam will be on conservative side. However the problem will be with the design of secondary beams. As we can see
Positive moment is reduced in secondary beams since they behave as a partially restrained beam. So secondary beams design will
not be adequate. Isnt it that the reason why we should go for torsion release in case of compatibilty torsion.Show less
o Like
2w


Vaisakh Vasudevan You should not release torsion in case of equilibrium torsion. For example if a cantilever beam without a
counterweight is projecting outwards from middle of the primary beam the primary beam should be designed for torsion. If you
release torsion in that case the structure becomes unstable.
o Like
o 1
2w

Peter Placzek Vaidakh Vasudevan as mentioned before, if you are an engineer it is assumed that you know when you have the
rare case where torsion is the primary structural resistance. Good luck, however, trying to estimate the torsional long-term
cracked deflection of this. I stand by my statement "Torsion is bad" in concrete building frames at least.

Show less
o Like
o 1
1w


Georgios Stampolakis Mr. Plazcek I don't understand why the bending moment reduction does not also occure at the second
example since the torsional stiffness of the transverse beams is not zero, is just reduced.

I also want to clarify that I have cought your spirit when you say "torsion is bad"; I think you mean that disregarding its existence
leads to more conservative designing results and not absolutely precise ones, right? In any cases is not about less safety,
right?Show less
o Like
1w


Haytham Mohamad Is it approprite to reduce torsional stiffness to .01 for edge beams in flat slabs?
o Like
6d


Mallikarjun Reddy G I would like to add more points in agreement Mr Peter Placzek
I suggest, as far as possible avoid torsion (if it is only a secondary torsion) in the structural system as it not reliable way of
transferring the forces or loads due its brittle nature of failure, And also due to more complexity in designs of such members as
final design forces or rebar area requirements are dependent on interaction of two of more forces involved (like Interaction of M
& T and/or V & T in design of beams like way P, M1 & M2 interaction in columns). Show less
o Like
o 1
5d

Peter Placzek Read my PS note 3 weeks ago Haytham Mohamad
o Like
5d


Carlos Leal Yes Peter, I liked your comment. I don't know any software to predict long term torsion deflection of a reinforced
concrete beam. The equilibrium torsion condition is rare because there is frequently a way to avoid it. But if you need it may be
you can think on an alternative material.
o Like
o 1
5d


Ali Kadhim Structural engineer should keep in mind that simulation of concrete frame in structural analysis be compatible with
concrete reinforcement amount and details.
When structural engineer fails to meet the full requirements for reinforcement ne...Show more
o Like
4d


Luisito Sta. Ines, M. ASCE Yes torsion is bad but I believe that you do not have to reduce torsional resistance of RC beam to
0.1 which is way too much. Of course any material will weaken its resistance to any external force such that it will exhibit more
stress especially when you apply too much reduction factor. In your exercise the bending stress became more pronounced
because the torsional resistance was greatly reduced. Btw, where exactly in ACI 318 or Eurocode 3 can you find that provision to
apply a torsional stiffness factor of 0.1? Nada, zilch, nothing, just your pure randon whim, I suppose. But in some cases, I do
agree to reduce the torsional stiffness factor to as much as 0.60 to 0.50 only, otherwise there will be too much overdesigning the
beam capacity.
Show less
4d


 Peter Placzek Luisito, the fact that 0.1 torsion reduction factor it is not in the code does not make it any less good practice in
FE modeling. I did not invent this. I was told to do this by others some years ago. The difference is that I immediately could see
the benefit. I am just passing on the knowledge.
o Like
o 1
3d


fathy gamal I was told to do this and I understand why but now after seeing the two beam and the different results clear I
understand more
Thanks